HTC already testing phones to work around ITC ruling

HTC Chief Executive Peter Chou revealed on Wednesday that the company is already testing a workaround in order to comply with the U.S. International Trade Commission's ban on devices infringing on Apple's Data Detector patent.

At a media briefing in Taiwan on Wednesday, Chou dismissed the infringing feature, which automatically recognizes formatted data such as email address and phone numbers and displays them as a link, as one that is "actually quite rarely used," Bloomberg reports.

The ITC issued an import ban against HTC on Monday that would block it from selling its Android handsets in the U.S. The ban is set to take effect on April 19, 2012. According to Chou, HTC has already developed a workaround and has been testing new phones with the software.

Apple began using the Data Detectors invention in the 1990s in Mac OS 8 before eventually implementing it in Mac OS X and iOS. The commission found that the "Linkify" functionality in HTC's Android devices infringed upon Apple's patent for the technology.

For its part, HTC has said it considers Monday's decision "a win" because it let the company off the hook from Apple's more serious patent infringement claims. The ITC's final ruling reversed a previous judgment that HTC had infringed on a real-time signal processing patent by Apple. A work around for that patent would have proved more complicated than simply removing "Linkify."

Analysts quickly responded to the decision, noting that Apple's narrow victory is not likely to have a major effect on either company. RBC Capital Markets' Mike Abramsky said the removal of the feature would "slightly widen" the iPhone's differentiation from HTC devices, but he conceded that it was only a "small prize for Apple and a small dent against Android."

Chou also said during the briefing that the handset maker would continue to work with Google to "protect ourselves." Both Apple and HTC have several outstanding legal complaints against each other. The Taiwanese handset maker recently filed a lawsuit against Apple using patents acquired by Google earlier this year.

When companies are allowed to steal intellectual property, this actually stifles innovation because instead of innovating and inventing new things, companies are just copying. When there are a lot of me-too products on the market, profit margins are driven down so nobody makes money anymore. This results in cost cutting and job losses and high unemployment.

Stealing IP should be viewed as economic terrorism and a threat to the wealth of a nation.

I wonder where South Korea would be today if the US pulled their troops from the North Korean Border. I wonder where Taiwan would be if China is allowed to "reunite" Taiwan to the Middle Kingdom. HTC & Samsung, do not bite the hand that fed you...

That said, Steve Jobs' greatest innovation is Apple itself. If Apple continues at its current pace of innovation, no company will ever be able to catch up to it. By the time they do, Apple is already out with the next paradigm shift in technology. Apple is an innovation machine.

Many are saying the patent system is broke. I agree that it is broke because the companies whose IP is being stolen has to spend a huge amount of time and resources to ward off the copycats. Then they have to wait two years or more for the judicial system to decide. That's longer than most product life cycles. By the time they win a case, the infringing product is no longer on the market. But the damage has already been done.

So does HTC have to pay up or do they just push out an update and everything is hunky dory? Is anyone working for Google affiliated with Al-Queda? Google is certainly nuking a lot of corporate America with its free Android to the rest of the world. This Android thing is giving all these East Asian companies an edge with American technology.

The government should set up a patent body that enforces patent rights. Like a police patrol that prevents thieves from stealing in a neighborhood. If the FCC approves everything before it goes to market, shouldn't somebody check on whether a new product is infringing before approving sale in the open market?

I remember reading in the news that the changes that HTC had to make to the OS is only affecting older and low budget devices. I don't think that they are aware that their customers might not be so happy with the changes and inconsistencies. They potentially become new iPhone users. But HTC doesn't see that and thinks it has won. Ask Apple, user experience is king.

Posted by the door post at the post office the post man posted his last post-millennial post card with a Penny Black postage stamp via the Royal Post.

I am annoyed that Apple keep being awarded patents for solutions that 90% of engineers would come up with in under an hour if presented with the "problem". This particular patent is for little more than a regular expression - but even worse is the fact that Apple have been awarded patents for human gestures!!! (sounds ridiculous - but it's true)

I am annoyed that Apple keep being awarded patents for solutions that 90% of engineers would come up with in under an hour if presented with the "problem". This particular patent is for little more than a regular expression - but even worse is the fact that Apple have been awarded patents for human gestures!!! (sounds ridiculous - but it's true)

Either I suggest you actually become an Engineer [whether it be EE, ME, CE, ChemE,] a Computer Scientist, and a Patent Lawyer or stop talking about prior art. The inventor of the Wheel doesn't invalidate a Patent in 2011 on the design and implementation of any Wheel.

It's getting real tiresome with the average person discussing prior art as if they are a seasoned Patent Attorney and Patent Engineer.

If you think Sidekick is Prior Art to how a Smartphone implements similar behavior I again ask you to find a new profession and learn to read the scope and depth of the patents in qustion.

Sidekick was a solution to work around Microsoft's/Intel's interupt system.

The Apple Lisa already performed the underlining tech this program did as well, and Apple patented it.

Edit: here's how Apple described themselves describe the patent (link):

"The '647 patent generally relates to a computer-based system and method for detecting structures and performing computer-based actions on the detected structures. In particular, this invention recognizes that computer data may contain structures, for example, phone numbers, post-office addresses, and dates, and performs related actions with that data. The '647 patent accomplishes this by identifying the structure, associating candidate actions to the structures, enabling selections of an action, and automatically performing the selected action on the structure. For instance, the system may receive data that includes a phone number, highlight it for a user, and then, in response to a user's interaction with the highlighted text, offer the user the choice of making a phone call to the number."

It is as clear as daylight that Borland Sidekick from 1983 comprehensively invalidates that claim.

Edit: here's how Apple described themselves describe the patent (link):

"The '647 patent generally relates to a computer-based system and method for detecting structures and performing computer-based actions on the detected structures. In particular, this invention recognizes that computer data may contain structures, for example, phone numbers, post-office addresses, and dates, and performs related actions with that data. The '647 patent accomplishes this by identifying the structure, associating candidate actions to the structures, enabling selections of an action, and automatically performing the selected action on the structure. For instance, the system may receive data that includes a phone number, highlight it for a user, and then, in response to a user's interaction with the highlighted text, offer the user the choice of making a phone call to the number."

It is as clear as daylight that Borland Sidekick from 1983 comprehensively invalidates that claim.

Actually I use to be a big fan of sidekick and used it when it came out on the mac. However, Borland never patent what they did in the program and if you know how the program work as described in help file it required that the phone number be formatted in a particular way in order for it to allow for the double click dial feature to work. I remember, and if you used period better the 3 3 4 digits it would not work. The reason I know this is a good friend of mine use to do this with his phone number just to be different. If you read the apple patent they improved on the idea, they did not need it to be formatted in a particular way for it work, plus apple patent allowed for it to recognize addresses and email and dates as wells.

As it was point out, just because someone came up with an idea it does not protect the derivative ideas as well. In the case of Android, Apple probably showed that Android implemented their solution the exact same way. This is most likely why the court ruled the way it did, and obviously the person from the above website information did not help Google or HTC assuming this information go to them as the person suggested.

...Apple probably showed that Android implemented their solution the exact same way. This i most likely why the court ruled the way it did...

If you are correct, then, from the Android perspective, this would be no problem whatsoever - the remedy would be to use a different combination of regular expressions to implement "data detection".

btw - if this page is an accurate representation of Apple's submission (and there is no reason to think that it isn't) then Apple themselves have used the expression "regular expression" in their court submission. Unless you are correct in saying that it's Apple's particular combination of regular expressions that the court got upset about (which ought to be a copyright issue rather than a patent issue), then effectively Apple have patented the hyperlinking of regular expression matches - which would be a scandal IMO.

... RBC Capital Markets' Mike Abramsky said the removal of the feature would "slightly widen" the iPhone's differentiation from HTC devices, but he conceded that it was only a "small prize for Apple and a small dent against Android."...

So despite what all the angry anti-Apple folk were saying when the news debuted, it seems their "workaround" might actually be simply removing the feature.
Here's a big thanks to all the a-holes that insulted and belittled people like me who argued that it might be difficult to work around this.

Personally, I think this is all about differentiation. Android phones already are disallowed from:

- swipe to unlock
- the "bounce" when you flip the scroll
- data detectors

Only need a few more of these sorts of things and people will start to realise that there *is* a big difference between the original and the copy.

I am annoyed that Apple keep being awarded patents for solutions that 90% of engineers would come up with in under an hour if presented with the "problem". This particular patent is for little more than a regular expression - but even worse is the fact that Apple have been awarded patents for human gestures!!! (sounds ridiculous - but it's true)

I am annoyed with people like you who spew a bunch of rhetoric without an ounce of arguments to back it up.

If 90% of engineers could have come up with whatever Apple gets patents for in under an hour, why didn't somebody else come up with it and file for a patent?

... It is as clear as daylight that Borland Sidekick from 1983 comprehensively invalidates that claim.

You are going to have to back that up with some kind of facts.

Borland SideKick was just a PIM that deliberately copied the look and feel of the original Mac OS (in DOS no less!), and it had a phone dialler in it, but I've never heard of any data detectors in use there. Since it's just a PIM, you are arguing that a phone number typed in the Notes app would highlight itself and format as a clickable phone number? Does "clickable" even make sense in a DOS context? Most users in 1983 wouldn't be using a mouse.

Also, it might have debuted in 1983, but when (or indeed if) the functionality was added is what's important.

Underlying all this is the undeniable fact that Apple basically invented "links" (hyper, www, or otherwise), in the first place. They have prior art in this area going back practically to the foundation of the company.

So even if there is prior art of some kind on the other side, you still can't say that data detectors are a copy of that. No one here on this list really knows enough detail to say that at all.

I am annoyed with people like you who spew a bunch of rhetoric without an ounce of arguments to back it up. If 90% of engineers could have come up with whatever Apple gets patents for in under an hour, why didn't somebody else come up with it and file for a patent?

Could I write code to hyperlink regular expression matches?

Yes.

Would I patent such a process?

No.

Why not?

1. I wouldn't presume to request a patent for something so obvious

2. I am not sufficiently driven to engage in behaviour that has NO PURPOSE WHATSOEVER other than to try to try to stop competitors from fairly competing in the market

3. if I lived in a country that would grant such a shameful patent (I am British), I WOULD then become a driven person - willing to use any means available to get out of the country

Underlying all this is the undeniable fact that Apple basically invented "links" (hyper, www, or otherwise), in the first place. They have prior art in this area going back practically to the foundation of the company.

So even if there is prior art of some kind on the other side, you still can't say that data detectors are a copy of that.

I wish people would stop using the expression "data detector" - it makes it sound as though the patent refers to something substantial, when it's actually nothing more than hyperlinking regular expression matches (see my previous posts).

Your post proves that patents don't stifle innovation. Apple had a patent on something but HTC innovated around the patent in question.

I disagree. Instead of wasting time and resources to reinvent the wheel, HTC could have been inventing something unrelated.

I could add to that that implementing the feature covered by Apple's patent is really simple and straightforward, while going around it is complex and clumsy. So if Apple spent a week on writing up the patent, HTC must have spent months. This is really a waste of resources and does not drive progress.

I disagree. Instead of wasting time and resources to reinvent the wheel, HTC could have been inventing something unrelated.

I could add to that that implementing the feature covered by Apple's patent is really simple and straightforward, while going around it is complex and clumsy. So if Apple spent a week on writing up the patent, HTC must have spent months. This is really a waste of resources and does not drive progress.

The workaround may be "complex and clumsy" but I think it's partly due to the fact that HTC had to come up with it in such a short amount of time.

If you are correct, then, from the Android perspective, this would be no problem whatsoever - the remedy would be to use a different combination of regular expressions to implement "data detection".

btw - if this page is an accurate representation of Apple's submission (and there is no reason to think that it isn't) then Apple themselves have used the expression "regular expression" in their court submission. Unless you are correct in saying that it's Apple's particular combination of regular expressions that the court got upset about (which ought to be a copyright issue rather than a patent issue), then effectively Apple have patented the hyperlinking of regular expression matches - which would be a scandal IMO.

Here is the problem, which no one here know, what was the methods that Apple employed to make this happen. There are many times more than one way to solve a problem, and each of them can be unique and patentable. However, since Apple patents application does not show the code or software methods they use to achieve their patent you can not determine whether one or another product infringes. In the case of HTC and Android they most like had to show the court the code and method they use and if it mirror or duplicated what apple did then there is where the problem lies.

I'll give you an example, there is case study on the VHS tape and the fact that TDK developed and owned the IP on making the Cartridge, 19 to be exact and if you wish to use or sell tape in a VHS cartridge you had to pay TKD royalties. Well that was true until a group the Boston area figure out a new way to make the Cartridge without infringing on a single one of the 19 patents. TDK obviously sued this group and lost since the group who made the design were able to show the courts their solution and methods were unique in themselves and were not done the same way the TDK patent were done.

It is not as simple as showing prior artwork or reading the patent to determine if the idea is unique or patentable. Most patents are written vaguely today, for a number of reason and one of those which was demonstrated by the TKD patent above, you do not reveal the details or specifics of the patent because if someone understand the methods and specific they can design around your patents many time. In this case, HTC may had no way to know if they actually infringe until the code was reviewed by a third party expert.

HTC can say they will develop a new method to get around the patent, however, if they lack the understanding the patent they may not be able to do it. If Apple did it right and you can assume they did, Apple would not allow HTC to see the actual code or method, on the third party expert would see it and he most like would be bound by confidential agreement not to share what he learned or saw to anyone but the court

It easy to say it does or does not infringe until if you have no clue what goes into a patent and how it is accomplished.

If you know anything about hypercard, hypertext and the invention of the Web, you know what I'm talking about here. You are misrepresenting what I said just so you can use your coveted "roll eyes" smiley.

No, it isn't. HTC already has a workaround, so it's really business as usual.

i.e., misappropriation of Apple's intellectual property

Quote:

As to whether the product is "crap" or not, 5 million people seem to disagree with you every week while activating their new Android devices, so I wouldn't put much weight on your opinion.

Let's consider the situation before disregarding opinions. How many of those 5 million had to buy a new phone to get an Android update and security fixes for their 6-month old device--that's crap. How many of those 5 million have never owned a smartphone before and don't know the crap they're stepping in with Android nor the ease-of-use, reliability and support they're missing from Apple? Clearly, there are at least 5 million suckers born every week.

If you know anything about hypercard, hypertext and the invention of the Web, you know what I'm talking about here. You are misrepresenting what I said just so you can use your coveted "roll eyes" smiley.

Let's consider the situation before disregarding opinions. How many of those 5 million had to buy a new phone to get an Android update and security fixes for their 6-month old device--that's crap. How many of those 5 million have never owned a smartphone before and don't know the crap they're stepping in with Android nor the ease-of-use, reliability and support they're missing from Apple? Clearly, there are at least 5 million suckers born every week.

Dr Doppio,

please stop it.

from those 5 million, you can bet that only a fraction could afford an iphone. they buy what they can. simple.

thanks to this android smartphone, i know that my next smartphone will be an iphone.

only someone really stupid would buy a smartphone without updates, that will be obsolet in 3 months, without any real advantage if they could buy an iphone.

Sprint is offering an update to Honeycomb 3.2 for the HTC Evo, currently using Android 2.2 which was judged to be using an infringed feature on that handset. Honeycomb was never created nor intended for smartphones according to everything I ever read.